Rdskns2000

Presidential Election 2020 - Your AntiChrist- Kim Vladimir Trump vs The Trump Slayer or Sacrifice?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

 

 

Personally don't care that much. This was 30 years ago.

 

Biden already admitted he was wrong and introduced a bill correcting the disparity in 2007; which may have been decades late, but even 2007 is 12 years ago:

 

S.1711 - Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 


Mr. President, 20 years ago, I helped write the law that established the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme. Under this law, it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. And mere possession of five grams of crack, the weight of about two sugar cubes, gets you the same 5-year mandatory minimum penalty as trafficking 500 grams of the powder form of cocaine, which is equivalent to about a 1 pound bag of sugar. The facts that informed our decision at the time have proved to be wrong, making the underlying cocaine sentencing structure we created unfounded and unfair. It is time to change the law to reflect this new understanding. That is why, today, I am introducing the Drug Sentencing Reform & Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007, which eliminates this unjustified disparity in Federal cocaine sentencing policy. Back in 1986, when we wrote the law that established the current sentencing structure, crack was hitting our streets and communities like a storm. I remember one headline that I think summed it up. It read ``New York City Being Swamped by `Crack'; Authorities Say They Are Almost Powerless to Halt Cocaine.'' That summer was called ``the summer of crack,'' and we were inundated with horror stories about how this new form of smokeable cocaine was ravaging communities. We were told that crack was instantly addictive, prompting the expression, ``Once on crack, you never go back.'' We heard that it caused users to go on violent rampages, was more harmful to babies than powder cocaine when used by mothers during pregnancy, and would lead to the disintegration of inner-city communities. And in Congress, there was a feeling of desperation that summer, a sense that we had to give law enforcement the power they needed to save neighborhoods being ravaged by this drug. More than a dozen bills were introduced to increase the penalties for this form of cocaine, but because we knew so little about it, the proposals were all over the map. They ranged from the Reagan administration's proposal of a 20-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine to a 1000-to-1 disparity proposed by Senator Lawton Chiles. I joined Senators Byrd and Dole in leading the effort to enact the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which established the current 100-to-1 disparity. Our intentions were good, but as further scientific and sociological study has shown, we got it wrong. We now know that these initial assumptions about crack and powder cocaine, which are just two forms of the same drug, simply were not true. Scientific evidence shows that crack does not have unique, inherent properties that make it instantly addictive. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, ``cocaine in any form produces the same physiological and subjective effects.'' We also have learned that the dire predictions about a generation of ``crack babies'' whose mothers used crack during pregnancy have not proven true. The negative effects of prenatal exposure to crack cocaine and powder cocaine are identical. Furthermore, data that the U.S. Sentencing Commission has collected show that crack users rarely commit acts of violence. Almost all crack-related violence is associated with trafficking, not with someone on a so-called crack-induced rampage. Looking back over more than 20 years, it is also clear that the harsh crack penalties have had a disproportionate impact on the African American community. Eighty-two percent of those convicted of crack offenses at the Federal level are African American, fueling the notion that the Federal cocaine sentencing scheme is unfair. There is widespread recognition that the current cocaine sentencing scheme is out of date and out of touch with reality. There are others here in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, who feel the current cocaine sentencing policy is unfounded. Like me, Senators Sessions and Hatch have introduced legislation to reduce the disparity and I want to congratulate them for their hard work and dedication to this issue. As a matter of fact, when President Bush was asked about the longer sentences for crack cocaine, he said that the disparity, and I am quoting the President here, ``ought to be addressed by making sure the powder cocaine and crack cocaine penalties are the same. I don't believe we ought to be discriminatory.'' A slew of commentators, Federal judges, Federal prosecutors, doctors, academics, social scientists, civil rights leaders, clergy, and others have spoken out about the unwarranted disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. And just last month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a bipartisan panel comprised in large part of Federal judges who preside over cocaine cases, issued a report stating that the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme ``continues to come under almost universal criticism from representatives of the Judiciary, criminal justice practitioners, academics, and community interest groups.'' This is not the first time the Sentencing Commission has urged reform. In 1995, the Commission recommended eliminating the crack/ powder sentencing disparity. Congress rejected this proposal. As scientific understanding of cocaine evolved, the Commisson urged Congress three more times to address this problem. Yet Congress did not act. We are long overdue in heeding the call for reform. The Sentencing Cmission has provided us with a roadmap. In its most recent report, the Commission ``unanimously and strongly urge[d]'' Congress to: 1. Act swiftly to increase the threshold quantities of crack necessary to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences, so that Federal resources are focused on major drug traffickers as intended in the original 1986 legislation; and 2. repeal the mandatory minimum penalty sentence for simple possession of crack, the only controlled substance for which there is a mandatory minimum for a first time offense of simple possession. The Sentencing Commission also unanimously rejected any effort to increase the penalties for powder since there is no evidence to justify any such upward adjustment. My bill implements all of these recommendations. [[Page S8615]] Specifically, my bill will eliminate the current 100-to-1 disparity by increasing the 5-year mandatory minimum threshold quantity for crack cocaine to 500 grams, from 5 grams, and the 10-year threshold quantity to 5,000 grams, from 50 grams, while maintaining the current statutory mandatory minimum threshold quantities for powder cocaine. It will also eliminate the current 5-year mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine, the only mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of a drug by a first time offender. It also increases penalties for major drug traffickers and provides additional resources for the Federal agencies that investigate and prosecute drug offenses. Furthermore, because I have always believed that the best approach to fighting crime is a holistic one that incorporates enforcement, prevention, and treatment, my bill authorizes funds for prison- and jail-based drug treatment programs. My bill both remedies the historic injustice in the current cocaine sentencing laws and focuses Federal resources on, and increases penalties for, the big fish, the major drug traffickers and kingpins who drive the drug trade. Unlike Federal powder cocaine offenders, over half of Federal crack offenders are low-level street dealers who could and should be prosecuted at the State level. States are better equipped to handle these small-time dealers and users, and under my bill, these offenders would still be punished, without expending precious Federal resources. Drug use is a serious problem, and I have long supported strong antidrug legislation. But in addition to being tough, our drug laws should be rational and fair. My bill achieves the right balance. We have talked about the need to address this cocaine sentencing disparity for long enough. It is time to act. I hope that my colleagues will join with me to support this legislation.

 

 

 

 

I care because a generation of men, including some I know, were destroyed by this and haven’t recovered. 

 

I know he apologized and they passed the fair sentencing act in 2010 – and why is there a disparity again? – but the wounds are still there.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I paid mine off after about 16 years and wouldn't wish it on anyone. Especially in light of seeing the buying (and saving) power my better half had because of no student loan debt.

 

I think it's going to be a hard sell to the public though.

Edited by The Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

I paid mine off after about 16 years and wouldn't wish it on anyone. Especially in light of seeing the buying (and saving) power my better half had because of no student loan debt.

 

I think it's going to be a hard sell to the public though.

 

"But it's not fair you paid for yours already and others wont have to!!!"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the link or his plan but he needs to roll this out with any tuition reform and affordable higher education or free community college plans he has to show that it's not just wiping the slate clean for everybody currently in the mess but about correcting the system that allowed it to happen and preventing it from getting to this point again. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Would probably free up an awful lot of middle-class buying power, just sayin...

 

So would a helicopter drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Would probably free up an awful lot of middle-class buying power, just sayin...

 

There are better and fairer ways to free up middle-class buying power.

 

All this is just catering to a certain class of voters.

 

While likely encouraging (even more) unethical behavior by institutions of higher education.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

While likely encouraging (even more) unethical behavior by institutions of higher education.

 

Oh yea. Cause if they drop all that money its going to be made up somehow. No one just walks away from 1.6T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paying off everyone's students loans doesnt address why so many fell behind in the first place.  I'd rather see it be made more realistic to pay it back and even allow on bankruptcy,  end garnishments. $1.6 trillion is such a rediculous amount of money, that should be going to our crumbling infrastructure.

59 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

I haven't read the link or his plan but he needs to roll this out with any tuition reform and affordable higher education or free community college plans he has to show that it's not just wiping the slate clean for everybody currently in the mess but about correcting the system that allowed it to happen and preventing it from getting to this point again. 

 

I read it, nothing concrete like his constant reminders to go after drug prices to make MFA realistic.  This has come up before, it would be a terrible idea to make college free, period, and an even worse one to have the government pay for it without making sure the prices go down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Paying off everyone's students loans doesnt address why so many fell behind in the first place.  I'd rather see it be made more realistic to pay it back and even allow on bankruptcy,  end garnishments. $1.6 trillion is such a rediculous amount of money, that should be going to our crumbling infrastructure.

 

I agree Renegade7, we can get more creative. Maybe cancel the interest owed, lower interest rates on the principal, only charge simple interest rates. People still have to pay off what they borrowed but at more affordable plans. Plus reduce tuition rates. Higher education has become big business and it shouldn't be that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Loan forgiveness via public service made so much sense. Too bad the current admin has tried to kill it off. That said, the fine print in that program needed to be amended and opened up too all student loan repayment programs (and not just the income based repayment program). Maybe also drop the 10 yr requirement down to 7-8 years. It would have a lasting impact of attracting new and younger workers into the civil service and solve some of the loan defaults.

 

One would imagine that something similar could be applied to other sectors as well. 

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

This has come up before, it would be a terrible idea to make college free, period, and an even worse one to have the government pay for it without making sure the prices go down.

 

I don't think all college should be free. I wouldn't be opposed to community college being free so people can still get a higher education or learn new skills to help them in their careers. Those that want the esteem or the higher quality education of a 4-year college can follow that path as well and pay tuition. However, i'd also want to see some type of review committee or association that regulates their tuition costs because it's blatant price gouging at this point that is ripping off 17-19yr olds and setting them back for decades.

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBF, this is just one bill. Bernie has had more significant ideas around college costs and the systemic issues with paying for college.

 

For me, there are a lot of things that need to be done regarding state funding of public schools, getting schools who have endowments that are bigger than tiny nations to give that money back to students who need it, etc. This bill is the start of something, but it is not a solution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

I don't think all college should be free. I wouldn't be opposed to community college being free so people can still get a higher education or learn new skills to help them in their careers. Those that want the esteem or the higher quality education of a 4-year college can follow that path as well and pay tuition. However, i'd also want to see some type of review committee or association that regulates their tuition costs because it's blatant price gouging at this point that is ripping off 17-19yr olds and setting them back for decades.

 

Ya, I've gone back and forth on making community college free because it's not really free, government is jus eating a loss that's supposed to count as a form of investment back into the population.

 

Keeping in mind a selling point of doing first two years of college at CC is to go to a different school that may be in a different state, opening door to never seeing return on investment for state that does that depending on the student. It should be that people can get training for a trade at a reasonable price without predatory practices. 

 

If we're going to treat post-secondary education like mass transit in that theres no expectation of turning a profit, it has to be kept in mind that most if not all major mass transit systems in the country run at huge losses.

 

50807101b.jpg.d8524b94c28dc3aadf7330f96bc5eff3.jpg

 

Good to make a plug for better regulating trade schools.  We really need them, but they are some of the worst at ripping people off, Obama was killing them off left and right because they deserved it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Bernie will never be President. I'd see how Lizzie would tackle it. I don't think it's exactly the same as Bernie. 

Edited by Rdskns2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to have my student loan debts wiped, but that isn't the solution. What we need to do is stop putting so much pressure on kids to absolutely have to go to college. Start incentivizing trade schools and things of that nature. So many kids go to college because they feel the need to, taking on unnecessary debt, and then end up struggling and taking a job they have to just to make ends meet. In those four(or more) years they could have learned a valuable trade and make real good money.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

If we're going to treat post-secondary education like mass transit in that theres no expectation of turning a profit, it has to be kept in mind that most if not all major mass transit systems in the country run at huge losses.

 

1.  There's never been an expectation for state schools to turn a profit.

 

2.  No publicly funded transportation system turns a profit either (i.e. roads don't pay for themselves directly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Bernie will never be President. I'd see how Lizzie would tackle it. I think it's exactly the same as Bernie. 

She has a proposal, tbf.

 

This bill claims we will get more money than hers.

58 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I'd love to have my student loan debts wiped, but that isn't the solution. What we need to do is stop putting so much pressure on kids to absolutely have to go to college. Start incentivizing trade schools and things of that nature. So many kids go to college because they feel the need to, taking on unnecessary debt, and then end up struggling and taking a job they have to just to make ends meet. In those four(or more) years they could have learned a valuable trade and make real good money.

I don't think this is the solution either.

 

You put money in trade schools, inevitably those will go up in prices because of demand.

 

The issue is why does post-secondary education cost so much? Then figure out how to get these clown shoe banks out of the exploitation business. Find the answer to that question and then start to peel it back. But sitting back and saying, "we don't need to wipe student loan debt" is not close to the answer.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  There's never been an expectation for state schools to turn a profit.

 

Then why has state college tuition tripled in the last 30 years and private colleges doubled?  Is it really as simple as cuts to education funding?

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html

 

Quote

Students at public four-year institutions paid an average of $3,190 in tuition for the 1987-1988 school year, with prices adjusted to reflect 2017 dollars. Thirty years later, that average has risen to $9,970 for the 2017-2018 school year. That's a 213 percent increase.

The difference is stark at private schools as well. In 1988, the average tuition for a private nonprofit four-year institution was $15,160, in 2017 dollars. For the 2017-2018 school year, it's $34,740, a 129 percent increase.

 

Quote

2.  No publicly funded transportation system turns a profit either (i.e. roads don't pay for themselves directly).

 

That's merely adding to my point, we'd be fundamentally changing the way we deal with post-secondary education costs if we look at it strictly from an investment standpoint and recirpicol benefits versus how much it actually costs on the budget from one year to the next.

 

This is going to be expensive as hell if we do this, is it really worth it?:

 

https://quillette.com/2018/09/29/the-high-cost-of-free-college-for-all/

 

Quote

The program Sanders proposes is massive; if implemented, it will increase federal education spending by 75 percent. The cost of this program is more than double what the U.S. government currently spends on science, and one-sixth the size of US defense spending. 

 

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Days like today are when Bernie feels like a GOP plant to just say stuff that when detailed make the original statement ridiculous. 

 

Yeah Man, education can cost a lot. It sucks because a better educated population is good for this country the same way a HEALTHY population is better for this country.

 

The way he delivers it is just so bad. There has to be a way to help people buried by student debt get out from under it, and make future burden less. Maybe service to the institution or state the school is in. In return some of the costs are covered.

Edited by @SkinsGoldPants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Then why has state college tuition tripled in the last 30 years and private colleges doubled?  Is it really as simple as cuts to education funding?

state schools aren't expected to turn a profit and more often than not do not.

 

The issue is "investment in infrastructure" and all that jazz. That's where the new costs goto. They also are not offering more professors full time/tenure track salaries. These schools still do not make a profit, but I feel it's down to ensuring they do not versus. But states have also cut back on spending on college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

state schools aren't expected to turn a profit and more often than not do not.

 

The issue is "investment in infrastructure" and all that jazz. That's where the new costs goto. They also are not offering more professors full time/tenure track salaries. These schools still do not make a profit, but I feel it's down to ensuring they do not versus. But states have also cut back on spending on college.

 

You right, I should clarify the difference between what looks to me like private colleges turning a profit and public colleges raising tuition to make ends meet.  My concern is what will it cost when we no longer have the ability for public colleges to offset their operational costs and it all gets dumped on the government to fill that void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.